From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 29 12:55:46 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFCFBD2; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jiashiun@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com (mail-oa0-f53.google.com [209.85.219.53]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C4112E4; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id m6so5964029oag.26 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=w7sfVTtCNu63jIZr2rURBKBL62fXcLnl+iKxYKimwOA=; b=X/pkLckmY6f8oFCB0+vXSgybXDhOojhcipSULEh1wNHkvptqPIAEjBMHOwt6v6pB4l 8nOHnUZa47UmlhIgazkNlAR6JJKMTa8Wak8pGMJWcZvVpwYmWWlUb0+rXInEmSV79lah vs8HKufSy/2q4mQc09FPF+8Cak/2JgjzSt80IIs2AeU1aL5UvPQy4ZBj18yD5AebAx9H /btQ26hciQcu+Ppq7xarcGQ8gRGtWaDugpALMhmiNKjiHz06sUPbTq0VSzsq/vDFOgDK Ea+Xnzz7W4DwHa6VYoDjTHOiokpmjwoSefS5f8dxXNm6ly8kBTmziCQzwWd8ivpwkYxW e/gQ== X-Received: by 10.60.179.42 with SMTP id dd10mr28951072oec.51.1367240140255; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:55:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.168.232 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <517E67AB.9030902@contactlab.com> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <517E67AB.9030902@contactlab.com> From: Jia-Shiun Li Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:55:10 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 To: "Davide D'Amico" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:47 -0000 Hi, that's ok, just to make sure the spec. Are you running - a 2-socket Xeon E5-2640 system, and - not running VM (and assigning only partial CPUs to it)? It will need someone else having similar machines to help reproduce it. My guess is some counting bits got overflown, or the CPU topology reported by the BIOS is too new for 9.1R. And the result is it saw less CPUs than actual case, and thus gives you worse performance than you expected. CC -hackers@ to see if anyone has ideas or access to similar systems. -Jia-Shiun. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Davide D'Amico wrote: > Il 29/04/13 14:20, Jia-Shiun Li ha scritto: > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Davide D'Amico >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, I'm doing performance tests on a DELL R720, follows dmesg: >>> >>> Copyright (c) 1992-2012 The FreeBSD Project. >>> Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 >>> The Regents of the University of California. All rights >>> reserved. >>> FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation. >>> FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #0: Tue Mar 19 10:24:21 CET 2013 >>> root:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/R720 amd64 >>> CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 0 @ 2.50GHz (2500.05-MHz K8-class CPU) >>> Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x206d7 Family = 6 Model = 2d Stepping >>> = 7 >>> >>> Features=0xbfebfbff >>> >>> Features2=0x1fbee3ff >>> AMD Features=0x2c100800 >>> AMD Features2=0x1 >>> TSC: P-state invariant, performance statistics >>> real memory = 34359738368 (32768 MB) >>> avail memory = 33027436544 (31497 MB) >>> Event timer "LAPIC" quality 600 >>> ACPI APIC Table: >>> FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 8 CPUs >>> FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 2 core(s) x 2 SMT threads >>> cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 >>> cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 >>> cpu2 (AP): APIC ID: 10 >>> cpu3 (AP): APIC ID: 11 >>> cpu4 (AP): APIC ID: 32 >>> cpu5 (AP): APIC ID: 33 >>> cpu6 (AP): APIC ID: 42 >>> cpu7 (AP): APIC ID: 43 >> >> >> >> According to CPU model you appear to have a system w/ 2 CPU packages x >> 6-core x 2-thread, which should be 12C/24T total. But it appears 9.1R >> only recognized 4C/8T. It does not look like a VM. Could you confirm? >> If it is really so 9.1R and your BIOS may have problem playing well >> together. >> > Sorry, I had to 'reuse' these servers so they are not available for testing > anymore. > > I hope I'll have similar servers in the future. > > Best, > d. >